Ex Parte Wallstrom

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2005

09732871 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LEIF WALLSTROM
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam
DECISION ON APPEAL
Leif Wallstrom appeals from the final rejection (mailed
August 20, 2003) of claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 9 and 16, all of
the claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “an absorbent structure in an
absorbent article such as a diaper, incontinence guard, sanitary
napkin, wound dressing, bed protection and the like, formed from
at least two superposed layers of one or more web-shaped
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
2
absorption materials” (specification, page 1). Representative
claims 1, 2, and 9 read as follows:
1. An absorbent structure suitable for use in an absorbent
article, comprising:
first, second, and third superposed strips of at least one
web-shaped absorption material, said first, second, and third
strips being dimensioned and arranged so that a perimeter of the
first strip lies entirely inside of a perimeter of the second
strip, and a perimeter of the second strip lying entirely inside
a perimeter of the third strip;
the absorbent structure (4) comprised of said strips having
been compressed to a thickness which is substantially the same
over the structure, so that the structure has a higher density in
the area thereof where the strips overlap each other and a lower
density in other areas.
2. An absorbent structure suitable for use in an absorbent
article, comprising:
a sheet of web-shaped absorption material (5) which has been
folded back and forth upon itself to produce a plurality of
effective layers arranged so that a number of the effective
layers in a center of the absorbent structure is greater than a
number of the effective layers in a peripheral area on each side
of the center area, and the folded sheet having been compressed
to a thickness which is substantially the same over the
structure, so that in cross-section the structure has a higher
density in the center area where the effective layers overlap
each other and a lower density in the peripheral areas.
9. A method for making an absorbent structure in an
absorbent article, comprising the steps of:
placing first, second, and third strips of at least one web-
shaped absorption material superposed with each other, said
first, second, and third strips being dimensioned and arranged so
that a perimeter of the first strip lies entirely inside of a
perimeter of the second strip, and a perimeter of the second
strip lying entirely inside a perimeter of the third strip; and
compressing said strips to form the structure having a
thickness which is substantially the same over the structure, so
that the structure will obtain a higher density in the area
thereof where the strips overlap each other and a lower density
in other areas.
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Hochstrasser et al. 3,508,548 Apr. 28, 1970
(Hochstrasser)
Gravdahl 3,545,441 Dec. 08, 1970
Tunc 3,800,797 Apr. 02, 1974
Karami 4,027,672 Jun. 07, 1977
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Gravdahl and, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gravdahl.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gravdahl in view of Tunc.
Claims 1, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gravdahl in view of Karami and
Hochstrasser.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
March 22, 2004 and September 09, 2004) and the answer (mailed
July 12, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
4
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1 through 3 based on Gravdahl
Gravdahl discloses an absorbent fibrous core for use in
sanitary napkins, diapers, compresses, etc. In contrast to the
conventional layered core shown in Figure 1, Gravdahl’s core 10
(see Figure 2) has a substantially uniform thickness and a mass
density which varies from relatively high at its center to
relatively low at its lateral and longitudinal edges. Gravdahl
teaches that this core “is suitably made by having the core
material, for instance defibrated [cellulose] continuously
produced in the shape of a web in per se known machinery” (column
2, lines 7 through 10).
The examiner considers appealed claims 1 through 3 to be
product-by-process claims, and that the absorbent structure
defined thereby is either identical with or slightly different
than (i.e., obvious over) the continuously formed core 10
disclosed by Gravdahl. In this regard, the examiner submits that
the superposed strip construction set forth in independent claim
1 and the folded layer construction recited in independent claim
2 effectively cease to exist when compressed to a thickness which
is substantially the same over the structure as recited in these
claims. To support this position, the examiner points to Figure
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
5
5 in the instant application as showing the claimed absorbent
structure without strips or layers and to Figures 5, 5a and 5b of
the Karami patent as extrinsic evidence that superposed strips or
layers of web material lose their layered construction when
compressed. The appellant’s Figure 5, however, is a schematic
drawing designed to depict densities rather than structural
details. Furthermore, Karami’s Figures 5, 5a, and 5b actually
belie the examiner’s position as Figure 5b shows that the layered
construction is maintained after compression.
On the record before us, there is no reasonable basis for
the examiner’s assertion that the superposed strip or folded
layer constructions recited in claims 1 and 2 would disappear
when compressed to a thickness substantially the same over the
structure. As Gravdahl does not teach, and would not have
suggested, an absorbent structure having such a strip or layer
construction, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claims
1 and 2, and dependent claim 3, based on Gravdahl.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 16 as being
unpatentable over Gravdahl in view of Tunc
Independent claims 8 and 16 recite absorbent articles
comprising a liquid pervious topsheet, a liquid impervious
backsheet and an absorbent structure essentially identical to the
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
6
absorbent structures respectively recited in claims 1 and 2. The
examiner cites Tunc as disclosing an absorbent article comprising
an absorbent structure arranged between a liquid pervious
topsheet and a liquid impervious backsheet, which arrangement is
conceded by the examiner to be lacking in Gravdahl. Although it
is not disputed that Tunc teaches that for which it is applied,
Tunc does not cure the above noted shortcomings of Gravdahl
relative to the absorbent structure limitations in claims 8 and
16.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 16 as being unpatentable over
Gravdahl in view of Tunc.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6, and 9 as
being unpatentable over Gravdahl in view of Karami and
Hochstrasser
In this rejection, Karami and Hochstrasser are relied on by
the examiner to show absorbent structures having regions of
varying density formed by compressing multiple layers of material
(see Figures 5 through 5b of Karami and Figure 9 of
Hochstrasser). The examiner also relies on both the conventional
layered absorbent core shown in Gravdahl’s Figure 1 and the
inventive core 10 shown in Gravdahl’s Figure 2 as together
showing “a core of at least three strips of various size as
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
7
claimed being equivalent as far as fiber or material quantity in
a specific location, i.e., having more in a center and gradually
decreasing outwardly therefrom, to a monolithically formed fiber
core” (answer, page 7). In combining the teachings of Karami and
Hochstrasser with Gravdahl to reject claims 1, 6 and 9, the
examiner appears to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to compress the three strips
or layers of the core shown in Figure 1 of Gravdahl in the manner
taught by Karami and Hochstrasser to obtain an absorbent article
as shown in Figure 2 of Gravdahl (answer, page 7, line 6 through
13). In short, the only suggestion for this proposed combination
of disparate prior art teachings stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6 and 9 as being obvious over
Gravdahl in view of Karami and Hochstrasser.
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
8
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3,
6, 8, 9, and 16 is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
9
YOUNG & THOMPSON
745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22202